what is it that catholics do wrong?

[Philip_B]

In the event of irreconcilable conflict, which is supreme?
The word of God
Papal magisterium
Sacred tradition

The root of sacred tradition is anchored in holy scripture which is indeed first part of the holy tradition. I will leave the magisterium for others

 

[Marvin Knox]

What this thread proves is that the differences between Catholics and some Protestants are completely irreconcilable on fundamental grounds.

Amen to that.

Actually though - the Reformation proved that long before this thread.

 

[~Anastasia~]

Amen to that.

Is this meant to express delight in disunity?

No need to reply (unless you wish to).

 

[Marvin Knox]

Well.... if the Catholic Mass is a blasphemous rite, then Jesus most assuredly deserted his Church in Western Europe for about 800 years, for from about 400 to 1200 A.D., the Catholic Church was the only real option for Christians in Western Europe.

Jesus has never deserted His church and never will. He may well have "deserted" the Roman cult as an institution. But a personal trust in the work of Christ has always been available for anyone who would so trust.

Do you really want to say that effectively all Christians in Western Europe were practicing a blasphemous rite for 800 years?

Effectively "most Christians - YES.

A true Christian may very well be unknowingly practicing what is a blasphemous act in their ignorance. I have never linked correct doctrine to salvation even though I believe it is essential for a healthy church.

As I have said very clearly - I sincerely hope and pray that many of those who hold to and practice wrong doctrine will be saved in spite of it.

Even when the Waldensians came along in the 1200's, their presence was quite limited to far Northern Italy, part of Switzerland and maybe a small section of France. Even when the Czech Protestants began in the 1400's they were quite limited as well. Hence, we could stretch things even further and say that for most of Western Europe, the Catholic Mass was the only way for a Christian to worship for an extra 300 or so years, till Luther's break in 1517.

That sounds about right - even though I would allow for other small groups to be understanding the gospel clearly as well.

I certainly wouldn't say that the Catholic Mass was the only way for a Christian to worship - even those who belong to the Roman organization. In fact, IMO, if the Mass is their only form of worship it is no worship at all.

............... most of Western Europe only had the Catholic Mass for 1100 years!.

No - even the true church has always had bread and wine with which to remember the Lord's work on our behalf.

But you are right in that you seem to be affirming that time of Roman Catholic domination of most things religious was indeed the dark ages.

Many in this age who are under the dominion of the teachings of Rome are living in the dark as well.

One need only review the memoirs of Mother Theresa to understand the utter darkness and despondency that is produced by an inability or an unwillingness to "reform" their thinking concerning the many errors of Rome.

The error which teaches that there is a special priesthood between God and man besides the Lord Himself - which has the power to perform certain rituals and say certain words which turn bread and wine into the body and blood of the resurrected and glorified Savior is but one of their errors - although a grievous one..

 

[Marvin Knox]

Is this meant to express delight in disunity? No need to reply (unless you wish to).

It is meant to express Godly delight in a complete disunity between light and darkness and between the true gospel and a false gospel - YES.

 

[Basil the Great]

Jesus has never deserted His church and never will. He may well have "deserted" the Roman cult as an institution. But a personal trust in the work of Christ has always been available for anyone who would so trust.

Effectively "most Christians - YES.

A true Christian may very well be unknowingly practicing what is a blasphemous act in their ignorance. I have never linked correct doctrine to salvation even though I believe it is essential for a healthy church.

As I have said very clearly - I sincerely hope and pray that many of those who hold to and practice wrong doctrine will be saved in spite of it.

That sounds about right - even though I would allow for other small groups to be understanding the gospel clearly as well.

I certainly wouldn't say that the Catholic Mass was the only way for a Christian to worship - even those who belong to the Roman organization. In fact, IMO, if the Mass is their only form of worship it is no worship at all.

No - even the true church has always had bread and wine with which to remember the Lord's work on our behalf.

But you are right in that you seem to be affirming that time of Roman Catholic domination of most things religious was indeed the dark ages.

Many in this age who are under the dominion of the teachings of Rome are living in the dark as well.

One need only review the memoirs of Mother Theresa to understand the utter darkness and despondency that is produced by an inability or an unwillingness to "reform" their thinking concerning the many errors of Rome.

The error which teaches that there is a special priesthood between God and man besides the Lord Himself - which has the power to perform certain rituals and say certain words which turn bread and wine into the body and blood of the resurrected and glorified Savior is but one of their errors - although a grievous one..

Well, I have not read the memoirs of Mother Theresa, but I am guessing that most of her despondency probably came because of the terrible suffering that she witnessed in urban India.

 

[~Anastasia~]

It is meant to express Godly delight in a complete disunity between light and darkness and between the true gospel and a false gospel - YES.

Lord have mercy.

 

[Marvin Knox]

Well, I have not read the memoirs of Mother Theresa, but I am guessing that most of her despondency probably came because of the terrible suffering that she witnessed in urban India.

Actually it had to do with the total lack of assurance of salvation which constantly oppressed her as a strict practicing Roman Catholic.

It is one of the saddest testimonies to the evils of the Roman system which one could ever read.

IMO - if a person like Mother Theresa did not feel she possessed salvation then I believe it is more than fair for me to say that the Roman cult preaches another gospel - which is not a gospel at all.

By the way - I make no apology what so ever for saying that teaching that a special priesthood (and only them) has the ability to say the words of institution in the Mass "Hoc est corpus meum" (from which we get "hocus pocus") and turn bread and wine into the body and blood of the risen Christ and then apply the salvation found in them to the lives of the little people who perish without it - is a blasphemous rite and another gospel which the Lord stands firmly against.

 

[Marvin Knox]

Lord have mercy.

I agree.

I sincerely hope and pray that the grace contained in His work at Calvary is wide enough to encompass even those who practice blasphemous rites in ignorance.

P.S.

Your posts seem a bit cryptic to me and I'm not completely sure if you are opposing me or agreeing with me.

But just in case it is the former - I hope you are simply unaware of the heresies of the Roman church and responding from that standpoint.

If I understand correctly the Orthodox view on these things - you should be just as outraged by the Roman heresies as I am.

If you have simply been unaware of the vast difference between the Orthodox view and the Roman then I would hope that you would just dig in and study rather than simply react out of emotion - believing them to be the same.

Once you are up to speed on their beliefs and practices, it seems that you would gladly join me in my opposition to doctrinal unity with them.

If what I am gleaning from your posts is accurate - this could be a great "learning opportunity" for you - provided you are willing to be educated.

Eastern Orthodox and Roman Catholic teachings, without doubt, have quite a few things in common. But they are very much different when it comes to a great many very important things related to salvation.

 

[Basil the Great]

Actually it had to do with the total lack of assurance of salvation which constantly oppressed her as a strict practicing Roman Catholic.

It is one of the saddest testimonies to the evils of the Roman system which one could ever read.

IMO - if a person like Mother Theresa did not feel she possessed salvation then I believe it is more than fair for me to say that the Roman cult preaches another gospel - which is not a gospel at all.

By the way - I make no apology what so ever for saying that teaching that a special priesthood (and only them) has the ability to say the words of institution in the Mass "Hoc est corpus meum" (from which we get "hocus pocus") and turn bread and wine into the body and blood of the risen Christ and then apply the salvation found in them to the lives of the little people who perish without it - is a blasphemous rite and another gospel which the Lord stands firmly against.

As a Protestant, I am not too big on a special priesthood either, especially for purposes of confession. However, I feel you are way too harsh in your condemnations of the RCC. Even if the bread and wine do not actually become the body and blood of Jesus, the very fact that millions believe such can have a powerful positive impact upon their lives, because it makes them feel very close to Jesus and his sacrifice for us. I see nothing wrong in believing something that by all evidence, was taught and believed from at least 150 A.D. onward and probably at least since 100 A.D. For me, the evidence is too slim to say for sure what was believed in the 1st Century, but the doctrine may well go back to the beginning.

 

[Marvin Knox]

As a Protestant, I am not too big on a special priesthood either, especially for purposes of confession. However, I feel you are way too harsh in your condemnations of the RCC. Even if the bread and wine do not actually become the body and blood of Jesus, the very fact that millions believe such can have a powerful positive impact upon their lives, because it makes them feel very close to Jesus and his sacrifice for us. I see nothing wrong in believing something that by all evidence, was taught and believed from at least 150 A.D. onward and probably at least since 100 A.D. For me, the evidence is too slim to say for sure what was believed in the 1st Century, but the doctrine may well go back to the beginning.

If the bread and the wine somehow mysteriously became the actual body and blood of Christ after taking it - I would have no problem with that. Indeed, it's not something I could even understand if it is so.

I don't see it in scripture. But I am perfectly willing to grant that it hurts no one to believe that it does literally change. In fact, you are right in saying that believing such would make for a very meaningful time with the Lord and I doubt very much that He has a big problem with believing it even if it isn't as believed.

After all - it's a matter of the heart and not absolutely correct doctrine.

My problem is with an earthly organization which claims that salvation itself comes by the taking of the already changed elements and that they alone hold the power to so change them.

No change = no sacrifice. No partaking of sacrifice = no salvation. No special priesthood and associated ceremony and words = no nothing.

Mother Theresa's view of these false teachings is exactly the thing which caused her torment of her soul.

She never traveled anywhere without her special priest who could give her salvation before she passed on in case of illness or trauma. She lived in mortal fear of not only thousands of years in Purgatory which supposedly awaited her - but of an eternity in Hell if things were not done for her exactly as taught in Catholicism.

These things and others related to them are the "blasphemy" I speak of and not the simple beliefs by Catholics concerning what happens to the bread and wine.

No doubt I have practices and beliefs which are off somewhere along the line. I'm quite sure I'm forgiven for them where ever they occur. But then - I have assurance that I am "saved" not just some cultish hope that I may be if I and those over me do things exactly right.

The blasphemy is the preaching of a false gospel of which, in the case of Rome, the transubstantiation performed by a special priesthood is an integral part.

So long as doctrinal differences do not interfere with a simple apprehension of the gospel I am willing to enter into intramural debate without harshness. But the moment the simple gospel of salvation itself is compromised - I take on another tone and make no apologies for it.

My "harsh" assessment of those who do not hold the exact doctrine I understand does not stem from an unfairly critical spirit. It stems from a Godly anger at those who shut up the Kingdom of God to those less powerful or educated than they are.

 

[FireDragon76]

Well, I have not read the memoirs of Mother Theresa, but I am guessing that most of her despondency probably came because of the terrible suffering that she witnessed in urban India.

Indeed. She chose to bare a terrible burden, and she had very high ideals indeed. That's bound to bring heartache in this sin-filled world. Still, it's unchristian to hold her up as an unqualified example of all the problems with Roman Catholicism, merely because she experienced doubts. All Christians struggle with doubt, if they deny this they are simply not honest.

 

[Philip_B]

Surely to great benefit of recognising Jesus in the Sacrament is that we might be equipped to meet him in the poor, the outcast, the stranger, the ostracised, the prisoner, the blind, and yes even in our friends. Bread is accepted, blessed, broken and shared, the model of the Christian life.

The Holy Eucharist is not different to the word, instead of being in English, Latin, Greek, Arabic, Chinese, Dutch, French ... it is simply the gospel spoken in the common language of all Christians that Jesus gave us, bread and wine.

take, eat, this is my body.​

 

[want-love]

someone dare to respond this simplified question...
Do the catholics go to hell?

 

[Philip_B]

someone dare to respond this simplified question...
Do the catholics go to hell?

I might suggest that Augustine tells us in Civitus Dei "There are wolves within, and there are sheep without."

Catholics do not go to hell for being catholic - imho.

 

[PeaceB]

someone dare to respond this simplified question...
Do the catholics go to hell?

Hell yeah we do! And I bet in great numbers.

 

[PeaceB]

I can see that this thread is still going strong. Is there a count on the number of times we have been called the harlot of Babylon?

 

[Ron Gurley]

BELIEVING in THE doctrinal error of the RCC does not send a spirit to the "lake of fire". UN-belief in Jesus as savior from and substitution for sin does.

John 3
17 For God did not send the Son into the world to judge the world,
but that the world might be saved THROUGH Him.
18 He who believes in Him is not judged;(BELIEVER)
he who does not believe has been judged already, (un-BELIEVER)
because he has not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.

 

[tulipbee]

someone dare to respond this simplified question...
Do the catholics go to hell?

it's not the dare, it's the gag. we're afraid to respond that God is telling the truth about man. none of us deserve heaven. who thinks they deserve heaven? most of us won't accept we're all rotten to the core called sin and can't save ourselves.

 

[Marvin Knox]

I can see that this thread is still going strong. Is there a count on the number of times we have been called the harlot of Babylon?

I've only been involved for a little while and can't spare the time to go through every post..

But I believe your post may be the first.